Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kovela Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 25 September, 2024

A
\

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                     THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
                       TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                       PRESENT


                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 16579 OF 2024

    Between:


    Koveia Vijay Kumar, S/o Thaviti Naidu, 33yrs, Police Constable 2863,
    Gunadala p.s. Vijayawada City
                                                                      ...PETITIONER

                                          AND


       1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
          Department, Secretariat, Govt, of A.P, Velagapudi.
       2. The Commissioner of Police, Vjayawada City.
       3. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Disha P.S, Vijayawada City.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS


           Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
    the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
    be pleased to quash or issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
    particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of
    the Respondents in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings vide
    C.NO.37/PR/2021 dated 26.09.2023, Office of the Commissioner of Police,
    Vijayawada City, while Criminal case is in trial vide CC No. 493/2021 of
    JMFC, Rajam is pending against the petitioner with identical and same set
    of facts is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, voilative of Articles
    14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to quash the
    disciplinary proceedings initiated vide C.No. 37/PR/2021           Office   of   the
    Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city, date 26.09.2023.

    lA NO: 1 OF 2024


           Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
    stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
    pleased to stay of all the further disciplinary proceedings against the
    petitioner initiated vide Memo. In C.No.37/PR/2021, Dated 26.09.2023 of
    Commissioner of Police Vijayawada City, till the completion of Criminal
 Proceedings vide CC.No.493/2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Rajam, Srikakulam District pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAMA KOTESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI S.RAJU, ASST.GP FOR
                                           SERVICE-1


The Court made the following; ORDER
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                 WRIT PETITION No.16579 OF 2024

Between:

Kovela Vijay Kumar, S/o Thaviti Naidu, 33
years, Police Constable 2863, Gunadala P.S.
Vijayawada City.
                                                        ...   Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its
Principal Secretary, Home    Department,
Secretariat, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh and two
others.

                                                       ... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner             :   Sri G. Rama Koteswara Rao

Counsel for respondents                ;   GP for Services -1



                                  ORDER

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of

respondent authorities in proceeding with the disciplinary

proceedings, parallel against the petitioner vide C.No.37/PR/202 1

dated 26.09.2023, pending criminal proceedings vide C.C.No.493 of

2021 in Cr.No.123 of 2021, as illegal and arbitrary.

SRSJ

2. Heard Sri G. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Services

- I appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner while

working as Constable in Gunadala Police Station, Vijayawada City, a

case in Crime No. 123 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner.

Charge sheet was filed by the prosecution agency on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, Srikakulam District and the

same was numbered as C.C.No.493 of 2021. Based on the

complaint made by father of the petitioner, police registered a case

in Cr.No.122 of 2021 against the complainant in Cr.No.123 of 2021

and the same was numbered as C.C.No.490 of 2021.

Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner vide C.No.37/P/2021, dated 22.08.2022 and Articles of

Charges were framed. At that juncture, the petitioner filed the

present writ petition seeking staying departmental proceedings on

account of the pendency of the criminal case vide C.C.No.493 of

2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based %

SRSJ

upon the crime registered in Cr.No.123 of 2021. He also would

submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry

and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the

petitioner and placed reliance upon the judgment of Captain M.Paul

Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited\ wherein, the Hon'ble

Apex Court observed as follows;

"The conclusions which are deducible from various

decisions of this Court referred to above are :

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the

charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-

sheet.

1999 (3) see 679 #

SRSJ

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(V) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest."

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would

submit that there is no bar to proceed with the inquiry simultaneously

and placed reliance upon the judgment of Secretary, Lucy

Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and

Others^, wherein at para No. 17, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"17. It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we are concerned in the present matter can never be said to be

^ (2019) 6 see 155 V

SRS,J

amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings \A/ere pending. The allegations made against Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable."

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

7. Articles of charges as per Annexure - I reads as follows:

"Exhibited grave misconduct and misbehaviour by bearing one Sri Kanakala Srinu, S/o Ramarao, 45 years, with stick and caused injuries to him, he also beat another Sri Kanakala Eswara Rao, B/o Kanakala Srinu with hands over a land dispute at Thalada Village of Santhakaviti Mandal and thereby involved as accused in Cr.No. 123/2023, U/s 324, 323, r/w 34 of IRC of Santhakaviti PS of Srikakulam District.

8. As seen from the material available on record the

departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.123 of 2021. The list of witnesses /

SRS,J W.P.No.l6579of 2024

mentioned in Annexure - II & III and the list of witnesses in the

charge sheet in Cr.No.123 of 2021 are mostly similar. In the allowed to circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are

continue, and if the petitioner divulges his defence and it will cause

prejudice to the petitioner.

9. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^

the Hon'ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order.

10. Given the facts and circumstances, as discussed supra, this

Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for

one year.

11. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against

the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, Srikakulam District shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C. as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is

^(2016) 9 see 491

SRS, J

needless to mention here the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments.

The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the

concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case.

If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal

case, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in

Captain Paul Anthony's case.

12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

                                                                  Sd/- M. SRINIVAS
                                   //TRUE COPY//         ASSISTANT-pEGISTRAR
To,                                                             SECTION OFFICER


       Secreter^rvlagalSudi:              D^P^rtment, State of Andhra Pradesh,

2. The Commissioner of police, VJayawada City.

3. Assistant Commissioner of police. Disha P.S, Vijayawada City.

4. One CC to Sri G. Rama Koteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

6. Three CD Copies.

Note:-

The Counsel for the Petitioner "Sri K. Vljav Kumar " i«t Koteswara Rao," In the Order the Court's Order dated 25 09 2024 In ^rceofffJiL'n amended Order !n place of earlier Order which was dispatched on 02.09.2024.

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT

DATED:01/08/2024 25/09/2024

AMENDED ORDER 7X t\0 0 I OCT 2024 S ea,

WP.No.16579of 2024 . Current Section .